Greenberry originally committed to play for the Irish on May 27, 2011 and hoped to join his cousin, Tee Sheperd, on the field.

However, the opportunity to play right away in a major market for an up-and-coming program was too much for Greenberry to resist.

Greenberry’s high school coach at Washington Union (Calif.), Jeff Freitas, said that the choice was easy for the receiver after spending a weekend on campus at UH. He fell in love with the coaching staff, the city and felt comfortable with the offense.

Freitas said that Greenberry made the move because it felt right for him, and that for the first time during the entire recruiting process, he was making decision for himself and not for others.

Neither the coaching staff at UH or at Notre Dame anticipated the switch. The Fresno Bee reported that no one was aware of the switch until Greenberry walked into his signing ceremony wearing red instead of navy and gold.

Greenberry comes to UH ranked as the No. 7 receiver nationally and No. 46 player, regardless of position, according to Rivals.com.

As a senior, he caught 109 passes for a state-record 2,165 yards and 33 touchdowns to helped lead 14-0 Washington Union to the California Division III State Championship.

His size, speed and leaping ability will make him an asset in the Cougars’ offense from the start.

The Cougars capturing Greenberry is not an anomaly. It’s just the beginning of a new era of football at Robertson Stadium.

At UH’s press conference for National Signing Day, head coach Tony Levine said that chasing top talent will be the norm from now on. Even if the Cougars are said to be counted out of the race for a player, it’s worth trying because otherwise you would never know.

On “Face the Nation” Sunday, Priebus made a condescending statement comparing Obama to Francesco Schettino — the embattled Captain of the Costa Concordia. Schettino abandoned his ship on which 17 people would eventually die.

“We’re going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino, which is President Obama,” Priebus said. “Who is abandoning the ship here in the United States and is more interested in campaigning than doing his job as president.”

Priebus attempted to clarify on Fox News’ “America Live” with Megyn Kelly on Monday afternoon.

“The analogy was made — and it was an analogy of leadership — that in a time of crisis, this president is leaving the White House and campaigning nonstop all the time,” he said.

He continued, accusing those across the aisle of pandering for effect.

“I think it’s pretty clear, but you know, if people out there — especially on the Democratic side — want to try to make hay of it, they’re going to be able to do that.”

“Last Word” host Lawrence O’Donnell lambasted Priebus for his comments. So did Chris Matthews on his show. Both used these quotes to prove that Obama has been egregiously disrespected by the Republican Party.

While it is certainly true that Republicans have attempted to undercut Obama’s authority, this event was not indicative of that.

Was it an apt comparison? No, not at all.

There seems to be both disrespect and a deliberate attempt to discredit that echoes from both the republican establishment and the outliers of the party. This is apparent in the vehement criticism that he has faced since before his first day in the Oval Office.

It began with claims that Obama was a Socialist or Muslim extremist. The cover of The New Yorker in July 2008 makes a prime example.

It continued with birthers’ claims that he was born in Africa. There are still people who refuse to believe that Obama was born in the US, even though he released his birth certificate a year ago.

Congressman Joe Wilson had the audacity to shout “You lie!” in the House of Representatives in September 2009 when Obama denied that health care legislation would provide free coverage for illegal immigrants.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that his number one goal was making sure Obama is a one-term President — not more important issues like the economy and unemployment or the spiraling national deficit.

I recount these events, not to hold a pity party for Obama, but to delve into the mindset of a party that is looking to delegitimize the president in any way possible.

With such overt examples that display a clear pattern of disrespect, it is easy to over-sensationalize any isolated event by blindly throwing darts at similar events and claiming to hit the bull’s-eye.

And sure, I believe that Priebus crossed the line in comparing the president to an accused murderer. But let us not overreact to a bad comparison.

As members of the media, we hold a responsibility to not over-sensationalize news or create narratives based on our own biases.

Fox News was formed out of the perceived lack of conservative influence in the media. Though the liberal bias in the media is vastly overstated, it does exist. Situations like this prove it.

Let’s save our scathing disapprovals for those who deserve it.

Christopher Shelton is a journalism junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

At 6:58 a.m. on Thursday, there were tons of cars on the road. Inside of each vehicle was someone gliding along to his or her profitable job that makes waking up early and sitting in traffic day-after-day, week-after-week, seem like a no-brainer. There is something else in each of those vehicles, and if you back up, you can see it — a college degree.

The University of Houston is one of the few public universities locally available to the city’s more than 2.1 million people. If we want people who want to work to be able to work, we need to make university degrees financially-accessible. Believe it or not, the cost of a degree is not universal and is not set by some higher powers. Sometimes, the control actually lies in our own hands.

Members of the Student Fees Advisory Committee propose to increase the per-semester student service fee by $50.

Given that entering students have at least eight semesters in front of them and the federal student loan rate in 2012-13 will be 6.8 percent, and that many loans run for 10 years, the fee increase would mean that someone without money is $550 further away from getting a university degree.

You can vote today and tomorrow almost anywhere on campus.

—Lara Appleby

Biology graduate student

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich needs no introduction, being one of the most scandalized Republican runners. However, he apparently needs a lesson about college.

“Students take fewer classes per semester. They take more years to get through. Why? Because they have free money,” Gingrich said to Republicans in Florida last week.

The quote ended up in the Washington Post and spread to newspapers like the Houston Chronicle. There is no telling how many college students — former and present — read his words on the Internet.

If there were any young college students planning to vote for him prior to the remarks, there should be none afterward. Gingrich must know how wrong his words were. Not wrong in an insensitive or rude sense — wrong as in false.

First, there is “free” money, but there is no such thing as free money. Gingrich should be aware of this thanks to all the campaign contributions he’s received. Free money is as real as unicorns and honest politicians. What most students use to pay tuition is not “free” money: student loans and credit cards. Both of these things students must pay pack with interest.

Secondly, students take fewer classes per semester, true enough. Many students enroll longer and delay graduation. But this is because students have almost no money. With little money, many students take fewer classes and work to pay off their tuition.

The only answer to why Gingrich would alienate himself from young college-bound voters with such insults is that he thinks he does not need the young vote. By insulting the young, he compliments the old.

“I would tell students, ‘Get through as quick as you can. Borrow as little as you can. Have a part-time job.’ But that’s very different from the culture that has grown up in the last 20 years,” Gingrich said.

The only culture differences between now and 20 years ago is the cost of tuition. This may be news to Gingrich who has not attended college in years. He might expect an 18-year-old not to vote, but the average UH undergraduate is 22 years old. The average UH graduate student is 29. We’re not an anomaly, which puts his “culture of 20 years ago” comment out the window.

Age does not entitle him to be rude or ignorant. When he mentioned borrowing little and working part-time, he did not realize these are common steps, that completing college in eight semesters is no easy feat.

Other candidates have yet to show a cold shoulder to young voters. Rick Santorum was quoted saying that President Barack Obama wanted more students in college to “indoctrinate” the young into a “left-wing ideology,” but this isn’t technically insulting students or voters per se.

A 21-year-old in New Hampshire asked Mitt Romney in Dec. 2011 why college students should vote for him. Romney answered bluntly.

“What I can promise you is this: When you get out of college, if I’m president you’ll have a job,” Romney said. “If President Obama is re-elected, you will not be able to get a job.”

Admittedly, Romney was talking to only the one student. The message is still a bit hard to swallow. Will students not be able to get a job if the incumbent is re-elected?

Last but not least, Ron Paul has no trouble getting young voter support nor is he likely to insult them. Although Paul is not the only Republican candidate with a limited-government stance that appeals to young entrepreneurs, Paul won 31 percent of the youth vote (ages 18-29) in the South Carolina exit poll — showing off his popularity with student bodies. Gingrich got second place of that age group, but if he continues to make these insulting remarks about college students, that number might not mean much for long.

Not that it will make a difference if students stay indoors on election day. Some candidates are counting on it.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

We’re trying to build a new football stadium and renovate Hofheinz Pavilion while also trying to build new residence and dining halls — not to mention our attempt at raising admissions requirements. But has anyone stopped to think what students at UH students actually want?

It’s not news to anyone that parking on this campus is terrible. It can take students more than an hour to find parking between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Sure, students receive e-mails at the beginning of the semester, warning them about the situation, but it’s not realistic for students to plan to come to school an hour in advance to make their hour and a half classes.

Furthermore, during game days — even for non-UH teams — parking is even more restricted. Should we really be putting more importance on sporting events than we are putting on education?

So what is the University doing to fix this problem? The construction of the new parking garage next to Robertson Stadium is a start, but when did UH start construction on it?

UH is also planning to build more residence halls, completely ignoring that the ones we have are unable to reach full occupancy. And don’t think an increased number of students in dorms would alleviate the parking situation.

With most dining options closed and a lack of things to do on campus during nights and weekends, students need their cars on campus just to entertain themselves.

Because UH is in the Third Ward with no viable dining options off-campus within walking distance, it forces students to either drive somewhere else or hope they don’t have a history of heart disease in their family. Maybe the University should be less focused on attracting new students and focus more on satisfying its current students’ needs.

UH students face an unstable financial environment. In 2009, 42 percent of new students took out loans to pay for their tuition while 82 percent received some form of financial aid.

UH is made up primarily of students who attempt to work their own way through school or who receive assistance of some sort to make their way through.

Moreover, the job market upon graduation is bleak. UH wants 39,820 students who are facing financial uncertainty and who are already having a difficult time paying for school to give them at least an additional $90,000,000.

Students will subsidize the athletics department to a tune of $4,407,707 this year. Every semester you are charged a student service fee. This semester the fee was $190. About 27 percent of that fee is allocated for intercollegiate athletics.

If the referendum passes, over the next 25 years, students would pay at least an additional $90 million on top of the $4.4 million that we already pay. Students would be spending over $210 million to subsidize the athletics department.

Alumni who attend the games are financially stable enough to spend money on UH. The cash-strapped students should not be asked to shoulder the burden.

— Samuel Brower, Ph.D. student, education

MegaUpload was raided and shut down earlier this month — and its principals charged — with numerous counts of copyright infringement, racketeering, and money laundering.

Founder Kim Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand in possession of forged travel documents and illegal weapons. He has since been classified as a significant flight risk and denied bail. The indictment alleges that MegaUpload made approximately $175 million last year providing access to copyrighted materials, and was visited by up to 50 million users each day.

MegaUpload did not provide copyrighted materials directly, but rather provided server space for users to upload files and then share a link with others, which would allow them to download the file.

The files were not hosted by users like torrents, which merely facilitate ports for getting in and out of the river of traffic. The site generated profit primarily from advertising and monthly fees for “premium” access, which allowed users space to store their files for sharing with others, as well as priority for downloading others’ files. Free users were given incentives to purchase a premium membership through various annoyances that accompanied every individual download.

MegaUpload executives claim that they did their absolute best to regulate user uploads in conjunction with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but many of the site’s features revolved around user incentives that were clearly designed to encourage distribution of copyrighted content. A good example of this would be their uploader reward program, which encourages users to distribute links to copyrighted material to as many people as possible in exchange for account credits, which can eventually be redeemed for cash or other rewards.

It’s difficult to believe that Dotcom was unaware what the site was being used for and that its operations were likely illegal. He is no stranger to legal trouble. He has been arrested previously in the ‘90s for stealing calling card numbers and in 2002 for insider trading and embezzlement. Dotcom is a notoriously flamboyant character in the Internet security industry. He owns the most expensive home in New Zealand, as well more than 20 vehicles — including a Rolls Royce Phantom with the vanity plate reading “God.”

He has also occasionally participated in Europe’s Gumball 3000 rally. Dotcom knew exactly what the site was being used for, and he maintained the site because it was quite profitable. The music and film industries want US authorities to make an example out of Kim Dotcom.

A high profile arrest could “change the calculus,” according to MPAA production executive Kevin Suh. But the film and music industries are trying to change the wrong variable. Rather than cracking down on pirating, they should make mainstream purchase less objectionable — iTunes music service has been profitable and popular offering downloads for lower price than the physical disc, as has Amazon’s service.

Providing a cheap, legal alternative to piracy won’t eliminate it entirely, but it will bring over the consumers on the margin. Eventually the loss of those consumers will cause fewer entrepreneurs like Kim Dotcom to enter the market.

A positive incentive, like fixing the problems that led to the growth of piracy will be far more effective than cracking down on file-sharers.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Graduation time is around the corner for the Spring 2012 class. Time to celebrate. Time to think ahead. Time to go out into workforce.

With student debt piling up and the cost of living rising, is it worth it? For some the answer is yes. Although unemployment rates may be high for certain majors, rest assured you will be ready when opportunity strikes. Having your degree will be essential to landing that dream job. Others feel the “system” has failed. In 2010 the average student incurred between $50,000 to 70,000 worth of debt.

Students must then ask “Did I choose the right major?” An industry that will be in demand. A field of study that is applicable to my degree. Or will the unemployment office be your next interview?

That may not be so easy for some students. A recent study showed that in 2009, 22 percent of college students were unemployed and another 20 percent were working in a field that did not require a degree. Do the math. Nearly half of all college graduates were either unemployed or working in menial positions.

How is this possible? While many students put in a lot time and effort obtaining a degree to only find out the job market is over-saturated. It is imperative that students do their due diligence.

It is also important to choose a career that brings happiness, as well as, financial security.

In such a volatile economy it is sometimes hard, but not impossible to find employment. One could always be more advantageous and seek a higher level of education. Research has shown lower levels of unemployment amongst master’s and doctorate degree holders. For example, a New York Times article mentioned more than 60 percent of those who graduated in the last five years say they will need more formal education to be successful.

Trina Thompson, a student who enrolled in Monroe College in New York (in 2009) is suing the institute because she cannot find a job. She owes $70,000 in school loans. “They have not tried hard enough to help me,” Thompson said in an interview.

Persistence is key. A job at Starbucks or Macy’s may have to pay the bills temporarily. Do what’s necessary as means to an end.

Monroe’s spokesman Gary Axelback said, “This lawsuit is completely without merit.”

Any college graduate would agree. Who sues their institute for lack of employment? If that were the case, some colleges and universities would be shut down. In the long run, students are better off with their degree than without it.

“The college prides itself on the excellent career-development support that we provide to each of our students, and this case does not deserve further consideration,” Axelback said.

Students could always migrate to a state with a better economy. Houstonians wouldn’t have to travel far. Moody’s Economy.com reported the Lone Star State had three out of the 10 cities with the lowest unemployment rates Houston was ranked first, followed by District of Columbia, Minneapolis, Minn. and New York City.

The article also said Houston’s growth was inevitable with its business-friendly environment and abundance of oil-money.

Of course no matter what you do in life it’s always best to have some sort of cash flow. It may not be what you want at first, but if it is, enjoy the icing on your cake.

Kamilah Sage is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

This suppression did not go unnoticed by Reporters Without Borders, who recently released their 2011-2012 global Press Freedom Index. The index reveals that the US has fallen 27 places since the advent of the Occupy Wall Street movement and its subsequent crackdown.

The US is now ranked 47th in the world on the Press Freedom Index. This steep decline is troubling, but it should not come as a surprise to those who have followed the coverage of the Occupy movement.

The people of this movement, even if you do not agree with their ideas, should be applauded for the courage they have displayed in the face of police brutality and governmental complacency. The reporters who strive to provide our nation with coverage of this movement should also be applauded for their bravery.

The fact that reporters are being arrested along with protestors should indicate to every American that freedom of speech is no longer valued by our government. They have sent this message to our nation’s police officers, and those officers have relayed that information to the public in the form of brutal attacks and arrests.

If our nation is to endure as a free society, a place where free speech is valued and reporters can practice their profession, then change needs to happen at the top. It needs to happen in D.C; it needs to happen in city halls; and it needs to happen in local police stations.

We need to vote into office Americans who respect the values our nation was founded on. Only then will we be able to ensure that our nation remains a place where freedom of speech is valued.

The theme of the night was jobs, specifically the countless manufacturing jobs overseas in China. It’s high time that these jobs come back to America, and, according to the president, there’s going to be more than enough incentive to come back. He’s planning to take out the tax deductions and tax breaks for companies operating heavily overseas and hand them over to the companies that are creating jobs for Americans.

The president has proposed a basic minimum tax for all multinational companies. Better yet, he’s planning them at a time when, according to the CEO of Master Lock whom the president had spoken to a few weeks prior, “It now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home” due to rising operating costs overseas.

I say “further” because it would be defying common business sense; any American company that continues to base so much of their production overseas with no intention to move back to the United States must be penalized severely for what I see to be as a directly hostile attitude towards the American economy. If they choose to continue operating overseas, they’re actively telling Americans that despite common sense, they’d rather hire Chinese workers instead of American ones. They’re willing to go out of their way to support China.

Continuing with his platform of more jobs for more Americans, Obama has advocated government investments into the natural gas and clean energy industries. As a proud Texan, I’m admittedly and unashamedly biased concerning his idea to open up our natural gas reserves. The Lone Star State will benefit the most out of the rest of the nation.

However, in his address, Obama made the commitment to end subsidies to oil companies, apparently starting with his decision earlier this month to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline that would run from Canada to Texas. It would have created at least 2,000 temporary jobs in the immediate short-term and at least 20,000 permanent jobs in the very near future.

In solidifying his stance against Big Oil, the president is going to endanger our economic growth. True, the point of clean energy is to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, but only because that oil is coming from a region that only benefits from our dependence, not share in the neediness. The Keystone XL Pipeline would have been beneficial for us and our northern neighbors, and now there are talks about the Canadians cooperating with the Chinese.

If the president insists on a shift towards clean energy, he’s going to need a growing number of educated workers in those fields. This is especially true considering the fact that the “growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job,” Obama said.

While his intentions are indeed noble, his methods are at odds with reality. He proposes to revoke a student’s ability to drop out of school until they are either 18 or graduated. The president has put an emphasis on giving teachers breathing room to actually teach the material and not the test; however, retaining willing drop-outs will only force them to either be kicked into graduating or force them to stick around a few extra years. Sleeping and texting in class has become the “cool” thing to do nowadays; I doubt keeping the kids longer will do much of anything.

Obama has equally condemned both sides for acting stupidly and stubbornly in a way that I find treasonous considering all that’s at stake. In what has to be my most beloved proposal from Obama, the idea that Senate needs to pass a measure requiring that all judicial and public service nominees receive a simple up-or-down vote within 90 days, the American people are going to get what we’ve been asking for: the ability to get a refund for our elected representative. Some of us would rather elect Mr. Coffee for Senator. Make this a yearly thing, an annual check-up or at the very least something you do when over 75 percent of the country hates an entire branch of government.

Something that hits further to home for us Coogs is that President Obama has “put colleges and universities on notice: If [they] can’t stop tuition from going up, the fund [they] get from taxpayers will go down.” Coogs, this means us. Our tuition is bound to jump thanks to our new Tier One status. It’s inevitable. In order to combat the greater demands put upon us, we need to raise tuition. Yet the president wants to stop federal aid for us wanting to get better.

To wrap up the night, Obama made his pledge for solidarity and unification. Given how livid people have been for the last few years, it’s more than necessary to try and convince us to hang on. The public’s already shown how hard it’ll hit back after the outstanding Internet uprising against SOPA/PIPA.

Like everything else Obama proposed in his State of the Union, these are all but promises of yet another politician. When the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, things barely got passed, if at all. With Republicans and Democrats at all-out civil war, asking for just one of his promises to be fulfilled would be a stretch.

These promises and proposals- — the ones that I do support — I do so fully and whole-heartedly hope as a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth that they are not empty promises. Americans are sick of the false words of hope and change. We’re tired of waiting. America needs the change he promised.

Barack Obama needs to remember that if people are forced to vote for him because of the poor quality of competitors this year, we’ll be expecting even more of him in his second term.

James Wang is a history freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

But in their stead was something more necessary for our country: a politician shining light on both the good and abysmal corridors lining our nation’s establishment. If efficiency was his goal, the man-in-office hit a homer. And rather than any sort of gut-busting revelation, the political sphere could do with some quiet and meaningful introspection.

If you were looking for surprises, you spent an evening on the couch in disappointment. The “food stamp president” highlighted the issues he’s come to identify with as well as those that have risen since he’s been in office. The backlash of globalization on American jobs, the country’s reluctance to utilize its own fuel reserves and the uppercut education has taken in our society’s social spectrum. Rather than innovate with impossible solutions to unsolved problems, Obama chose to readdress the issues at hand with the frankness they deserved and with the methods he proposed for handling them proving even more frank.

Not surprisingly, Congress received a substantial amount of attention — more for what it’s failed to accomplish than its successes. Its successful attempts at piddling with the nation’s financial security were praised for what they were worth. Along with this attention came a reprise of all the error, including the assurance that, following his re-election, the mistakes wouldn’t make a second appearance. If there was any cause for alarm, it would have been the silence surrounding the upcoming election. Obama spent less time dissecting his potential competitors than he did praising President Bush Jr. If not for the date and time positioned at the bottom of the broadcast, one might have thought that they were watching a president speaking to his audience about the most immediate issues at hand.

And in all honesty, what was there to say? With four suitors at the door sporting new policies, wives, psychological predispositions and religions on a daily basis, there would have been nothing to pinpoint. It would have been a waste of breath and energy to address even one of them. Knowing this, Obama chose to do just that. Rather than throwing dirt and scuffing shoes, the president talked about his presidency instead. The message served its purpose: a skeleton of how the country is doing at this moment in time. It wasn’t glamorous, but that’s only appropriate. We’ve seen better days. Even still, in the midst of ongoing troubles in state and commerce, it was refreshing to see a politician address every guest in the room, purple elephants and all.

Whether describing the reprieve of the 1 percent, of the consternation of everyone else, that sort of straightforwardness is 100 percent admirable.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

If approved, the fee increase would be in effect for up to 25 years. The next generation of Cougars will be affected by the increase, so UH students should carefully weigh the pros and cons of the fee increase before voting on it.

A negative aspect of this fee increase is that it is coming at a terrible time. It would be difficult to find a single Cougar who has not been affected by the recession. While $45 a semester doesn’t seem like a lot of money when tacked onto a student’s semester total, that $45 could be used to buy two weeks of groceries.

Another negative aspect of the increase is that many UH students would rather see the money go towards furthering the academic goals of our campus. While we always have a good turn out at our football and basketball games, there are many students who care more about their academic pursuits than attending games. These students would likely rather see extra money spent making UH a more academically rigorous environment.

But on the flip side, having state-of-the-art football and basketball stadiums could attract wealthy donors to our University. Not to mention prospective Cougars may be attracted to UH because of the prestige of our athletic teams and the grandeur of the buildings they play in.

Students can think of the fee as a way for them to give back to the University. When they come back for a football or basketball game after graduation, they would feel proud that they had a part in the construction of the new football stadium and the facelift of Hofheinz Pavilion.

There will be 12 voting locations on campus, including M. D. Anderson Library and the University Center. Be sure to have your voice heard.

The accessibility to porn used to be limited. Imagine the clichéd scene of times past when, by chance, a teenager would find a male relative’s Playboy magazine hidden under their mattress. Now access is boundless because a quick search on Google yields thousands of links to free and paid content.

One can even access porn through their cell phones, and smart phones have brought the invention of “hook-up apps.” Those apps are usually advertised as “social” and “dating” apps, and while they may have been created with good intentions, they create a society of instant sexual gratification.

There is also the term “sexting,” which involves the sending and receiving of explicit images and texts. Sexting is becoming the “gateway” to sex for young teens.

It can be said that Houston is affected more than most cities. According to okcupid.com, one of the fastest-growing free dating sites for singles, Houston was voted as one of the top 10 most promiscuous cities. Okcupid.com gathered the percentages of users from each city that chose “casual sex” as one of the relationship types they were seeking and Houston was number 10.

As they say, the proof is in the pudding — or in this case, proof is in the syphilis. The instances of syphilis have exploded here.

In 2007, there was a volatile outbreak of cases. The city had to rein it in with free clinics and awareness drives. The percentage of cases had nearly doubled from the previous year, and the trend is still rising.

What is more disturbing than the rise of sexting is that evidence points to it correlating to teens partaking in group sex.

A new study released by Boston University’s School of Public Health states that teens as young as 14 are engaging in group sex.

More than half of the teens polled said at least one of the people in the orgies did not wear a condom.

The study also came to the conclusion that those who had watched porn in the month prior to the study were five-times more likely to have group sex. In other words, those who watched porn more often were more likely to indulge.

Most of the girls stated they were forced, high or drunk when they partook in the group sex.

As much as teens like to deny it, they are very impressionable. When they see a certain behavior, they absorb it like a sponge. The accessibility and the ease with which one can find sex today is changing our views about it. The change is already visible.

When asked why he thought this was happening, political science junior Tyler Albarado said, “Parents need to be more involved in their children’s lives. They are doing very little to prevent these things from occurring by not taking simple measures like talking to their kids or spending time with them.”

In the end, it’s the parents’ fault because they either ignored the whole concept of sex or they didn’t take steps to involve themselves in their childrens’ lives or check their computers.

Alejandro Caballero is a creative writing junior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Earlier this month, Arizona Superintendent for Public Instruction John Huppenthal decided to suspend high school Mexican-American studies classes because he believes they are in violation of ARS 15-122, a law designed to ensure Anglo-culture reigns supreme in the Grand Canyon State.

The law more or less bans Arizona public schools from including classes that portray white people in a negative light. Of course the text of the law doesn’t explicitly say this, but anyone who has paid even the slightest attention to the growing racial tension in Arizona should be able to see through the carefully chosen text of the law.

The law bans classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group,” or “promote resentment toward a race or class of people.”

This is interesting, because most high school textbooks are geared toward a particular ethnic group — the group that composes most of our population. Among the snubbed are two books from UH’s Arte Público Press that focus on Hispanic civil rights issues.

It is disturbing that there are still people alive today who are so against diversity that they would not only pass, but also enforce such ethnocentric laws.

What is so threatening about Mexican-American studies courses that they warrant being suspended? Could it be that students in these courses would learn about the discrimination Mexican-Americans in our nation have endured and are still enduring today?

It is important for high school students to learn the entire history of our nation  — not just the history that appeases the majority race.  If America is ever to become post-racial, we cannot hide from the past. Instead, we have to celebrate the many cultures that come together to make our nation so unique.

There’s nothing scientific about this. There are no formulas, extraneous variables or misleading statistics. Whole countries make their living off of this, and they’ve yet to be ostrisized.

The drive to smoke depends on the individual.

The fact that Alvin succumbs to the weight of his social conscious on a regular basis bears no relation to whether or not Janine will follow suit. She may choose to set up shop on a stoop by the library, or on a bench before a meal. The lighter might be in motion before she’s even left the building.

It’s a social anomaly, and one that’s significantly amplified on the campus of a university. One might think that common consideration for our neighbors — an inclination instilled in us from childhood, hardened by television, the internet and popular radio — would be strong enough to repel Nicotine, but one would be wrong.

So although the University’s Student Government Association acted with the best intentions in mind with the passage of this month’s smoking bill, it’s the smoker’s addiction that’s going to render it ineffective. The bill isn’t intended to “outlaw smoking on campus,” but to “make the environment healthier for non-smoking students.”

Implementing a distance of 25 feet between smokers and the buildings they inhabit would be an ample solution for say, a home for the elderly, or any environment where the locals would be daunted by slight alterations in distance. This obviously isn’t applicable for a college campus.

It’s one thing to dismantle an issue, stripping it of all the variables that make it possible, but it’s completely different to kick it a couple of yards further down the road.

Discontinuing cigarette sales on campus would be a solution.  Regulating public smoking to particular hours would follow the same course. This is not a solution so much as a shift.

But let’s pretend that this bill is actually followed by UH students. Even if their hearts are in the right place, smokers are now just 10 paces further from Cullen than they would have been several weeks ago.

Depending on the location and the time of the day, a smoker may find himself even deeper within a crowd of nonsmoking students.

This isn’t to say that it wasn’t a good idea. Smoking will continue to be a health hazard. It’s not glamorous like the movies would like you to believe, and very few people look good doing it.

It is well within the interests of both the University and its student organizations to attack it as an obstacle head on. But if there’s going to be any leeway made, it’ll have to be approached with every tool at the table — as opposed to an early semester and ineffective trust.

Nicotine is loud. If the SGA hopes to garner any leeway out of this premise, it’s going to have to speak a little louder.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Exactly one week ago thousands of websites temporarily blacked out content to protest online piracy bills. The US government seized a popular but dubious website the next day. Internet hacktivists struck soon after. The legislation was paused before the weekend arrived.

That is the quick and dirty version. Even if the legislation and protests should be news to no one, the FBI crackdown and subsequent backlash have yet to go mainstream.

Websites like Wikipedia blocked their own content Wednesday, Jan. 18 to raise awareness of the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act. Most did not return for 24 hours.

Then on Thursday the US Justice Department and FBI shut down the file hosting website Megaupload. Several people who operated Megaupload (including the owner) were arrested and indicted with five charges of copyright infringement and conspiracy.

The FBI seized 18 domain names and an estimated $50 million in assets and servers. Keep in mind this occurred without the assistance of SOPA and PIPA.

Hours after Megaupload was shut down, the internet group Anonymous knocked websites offline via distributed denial of service attacks. Government targets included websites for the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice and the White House. The websites for Warner Music, Universal Music and the Recording Industry Association of America were also targeted.

The crescendo, however, came on Friday, Jan. 20, when the U.S. House Judiciary Committee postponed plans to draft the SOPA bill and delayed a vote for PIPA.

Perhaps the protests from websites like Wikipedia and Google were to thank for the halt, or maybe it was citizens who overloaded servers and circuit boards as they contacted their government representatives. Or, perhaps it was the low orbit ion cannon DDoS backlash that Anonymous delivered.

Maybe, just maybe, our government representatives realized what a mistake they were making. But this is unlikely. The best argument against SOPA and PIPA — if not most government regulation — is that politicians tend to not understand the subject matter.

There are fundamental ideas about the internet that Texas Representative Lamar Smith did not comprehend when he proposed SOPA. Looking at Smith’s record of copyright legislation, this should come as little surprise.

There will always be Internet pirates to get around IP address blocks and rip copyrighted content — they cannot be legislated away. In addition, allowing media corporations to call the shots on copyright infringement is irresponsible, if not frightening. Most of all, it should be realized that the Internet is regulated without help from SOPA and PIPA.

Even before Megaupload was seized, the website was hit with all kinds of take-down notices and corporate threats.

In December 2011, several music artists collaborated in a promotional ad for Megaupload and the video ad ended up on YouTube. Mere hours after the upload, YouTube received a take-down notice from Universal Media Group. The take-down notice claimed that the ad was a copyright violation of UMG content under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This was incorrect, but Youtube removed the promotional video anyway.

Don’t be confused about the protection of musicians. UMG was against the ad because the video raised awareness about file sharing and piracy. UMG did not even own any content in the ad — unless they think they own the musicians. In essence, a corporate entity bullied a website into taking down content that hurt its feelings without the aid of SOPA or PIPA.

The argument that SOPA and PIPA were meant to protect consumers and producers is absurd. These two bills cater to the overblown entertainment industry and the old media. Sure, the entertainment industry produces money, but so does the technology industry. It should be obvious which of the two uses the Internet to its full potential.

If nothing else, other than outer space, the internet is the final frontier. It needs to stay that way.

A supercomputer would not be able to comprehend what the average Internet user can realize easily. Apparently the average lawmaker cannot realize this simple fact either.

David Haydon is a political science senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Campus Calendar Girls bills itself as a charitable organization, but in reality it only donates 10 percent of its revenue to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the Wounded Warrior Project. While we can’t condemn anyone for donating to two noble causes, using the guise of charity to exploit female students is offensive to our campus.

This is primarily because it sheds a negative light on the women of our University and devalues their achievements as students at a Carnegie-designated Tier One Research Institution. Having a calendar full of provocatively-posing students undoes the work the current administration has done to refine our national academic reputation and increase the prestige of our University.

This calendar brings a kind of attention to UH that isn’t in keeping with the achievements and advances we’re making every day on a national level. In fact, it creates the illusion that students here aren’t as concerned with education as they are with social standings.

Furthermore, it tarnishes the reputation of the Bauer School of Business, which is a nationally-ranked business school. Surely Bauer students have more to offer than this — there’s nothing original or interesting about exploiting women to make a quick buck. Such a reputable business school should be teaching its students to be innovative in their approach to applying their degrees. There are certainly students at Bauer whose ideas are more deserving of recognition than those responsible for Campus Calendar Girls.

While they should undoubtedly be applauded for the success of their start up, that success is tainted by the fact that a cheap idea is what earned them the limelight.

The brilliant simplicity of “1 o’oclock, 2 o’clock 3 o’clock rock”  made American culture deliciously contagious.

In college I began to appreciate the broader significance of that freedom; it was not limited to the tolerance of irreverence. Implicit in that freedom was limitless possibility including the possibility to re-imagine our world.

King captured that possibility. He spoke about dreams. His words were a daring miracle for those of us who come from tradition bound places where turtles move faster than social change. King is a beacon for the rest of the world. Today, it is easy for our cousins in other countries to criticize the US. Yet, when we counter their list of complaints with the story of King, they are silenced. He is theirs as much as he is ours.

Dina Al-Sowayel, Ph.D, is the associate director of women’s studies and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

Hunched over cell phones, huddled in groups or reflecting inwardly, what you’d find is the widespread mourning of a valued cultural figure, the sort of guy you’d want to have over for dinner, or to feed your dog during a weekend vacation.

There’d be no mention of their attitudes towards the man a few months prior, as word of his detachment from a much less flattering scenario ascended from whispers amongst higher-ups to dinner table debates.

The difference is polar enough to make you wonder if it’s the same man — but of course it is. The gesture is one of many that have fluctuated in the media over the past few years: That of the people’s hero turned fallen angel turned beloved indebted. We saw it with Amy Winehouse, as news outlets contrasted her “undesirable” status with her genuine ability to light up a room.

It was present with Steve Jobs, whose innate ability was continually marred by his own ubiquity. Michael Jackson’s name still prompts raised eyebrows.

When someone has died, they’re dead. It sounds redundant, something a toddler’s mother might tell her son after an evening of questions at bedtime; but that may be the reason it’s rejected so often. Looking at the way we treat our deceased in the media, our acceptance of this rite isn’t always so certain, and our society’s ongoing practice of tearing someone down only to build them up after their final hours has become an even bigger paradox as of late.

There’s no such thing as an absolute, but complete reversals of thought do shed light on how we’ve come to identify with mortality in our society.

What in our personal belief systems has changed that prompts the distancing or expansion of a persona? It could be that an increased reliance upon our own personal aliases has contributed to the image of an individual on Facebook as opposed to the eccentricities of the individual themselves. And even if technology is playing a role, what’s to say for the sudden inquisitions? People have been dying for years.

So we’re left with a choice to make. Do we acknowledge the mistakes our idols have made after their passing? Or do we let things lie once they’ve drawn their final breaths?

Whatever decision we make probably says more about ourselves as individuals than any sort of greater collective, but it’s still a resolute one. At the very least it serves as a reminder, that with advancements in our lives — both technological and personal — our beliefs shift accordingly in turn. At some point, it’s something we’ll have to put in check.

Then again, maybe we’re not above that either.

Bryan Washington is a sociology freshman and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.

According to a new study by the Center for Disease Control, it appears that some teens are not entirely aware of where babies come from.

The study examined use of contraception among five thousand teen mothers in 19 states. About half of the women surveyed said that they used no contraception at the time they became pregnant — of these, one-third said they did not believe that they would become pregnant, another third said their partner refused to use contraception and the remaining third reported they simply “did not mind” becoming pregnant.

The respondents that did use contraception were largely using oral contraceptives, condoms or engaging in less effective methods such as withdrawal or rhythm methods.

According to the CDC, teens that became pregnant likely failed to use the effective methods consistently or properly.

These responses are quite disturbing. Teens are not known for their judgment, but it’s quite a stretch of magical thinking to believe that unprotected sex won’t result in pregnancy. Even more disturbing is the large portion of girls that gave in to their partners’ demands and failed to use contraception. Why haven’t these teens been educated about the proper use of contraception or managing their fertility?

This is not to say progress has not been made. In 2005, the teen birth rate in the United States hit its lowest level in 30 years, but the US still has the highest teen birth rate in the developed world. The highest rates of teen pregnancy occur largely in the southern states, while the lowest rates are concentrated in the Northeast and the West.

Not coincidentally, these geographical areas correspond to different commonly-used methods of sex education. Evidence-based sex education is common in the Northeast and the West, whereas abstinence-based sex education is more popular in the South.

Texas receives more federal funding for abstinence-based sex education than any other state, but is second only to Mississippi in live births to girls aged 15-19. Researchers have shown that even on a school-by-school basis, those that employ abstinence-only programs have consistently higher teen pregnancy rates than those that use evidence-based programs.

Abstinence-only education programs simply do not work.

This is not to say that there is no place for abstinence. It is a 100 percent fool-proof method and an excellent choice for teens to make, but it isn’t always realistic. To expect every teenager in the United States to completely abstain from sexual behavior is simply unreasonable. Abstinence-only programs have also been known resort to scare tactics and patently false information.

I clearly recall my own class being taught during our abstinence-only sex education program that microscopic holes in condoms allowed HIV to pass through them, and thus condoms offered essentially no protection against the transmission of HIV. Such “education” is not only completely and totally false, but dishonest. What justification is there for exposing teens to completely dishonest information that carries with it serious health risks?

And once teens discover that the information is untrue (and they will), the only lesson they learn is to completely ignore everything they are told in school relating sex education.

Many supporters of abstinence-based sex education programs claim that if parents want their children to be taught about proper use of contraception and STI prevention that they should be taught at home. Such a claim totally fails to consider that many of the teens that need this education the most are unlikely to receive it at home.

The parent may also be uneducated about sexual health, disinterested or uncomfortable discussing the subject with their child. That shouldn’t mean that the student shouldn’t be educated about their own biology.

Teaching teens that their bodies and feelings are shameful will only teach the wrong lessons. The women that were surveyed by the CDC did not intend to become pregnant when they did. How many of these pregnancies could have been prevented with proper instruction on the statistical effectiveness of various methods of contraception and how to use them? What if male teens were taught that birth control was just as much their responsibility as their partners’and girls were armed with enough information and self-respect to insist on the use of contraception?

Young people deserve access to quality medical information — not to be shamed or lied to. Sex and sexuality are basic and natural facts of life common to all people. We cannot mitigate the potential negative consequences of sexual behavior by pretending that teenage libido doesn’t exist.

We can only give these young people solid information so that they can make educated choices about when and how they want to start a family — when they are ready.

Emily Brooks is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com.